Take your time, Apple. Get it right.
Only a fool would want you to rush this update out.
Agreed
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.6.5 Build 10H542 Seeded to Select Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed
I've actually had no problems with SMB here. I mean yes, browsing folders is slow, but in terms of content preservation-- no issues. This is both via a local connection or VPN. Granted, I don't transfer hundreds of files either; usually just one big DMG backup.
If I recall correctly, the word on the street was that Microsoft "intentionally" broke SMB in W7, both for security and lack of interoperability. Don't quote me here; but W7 can use SMB both via the NetBIOS interface and a regular interface-- two different ports (actually 3), one with the NetBIOS carrier crap, one without. I've yet to try it, but there's also word that W7 kills SMB to anything pre-vista.
Of course that's all assuming your copy of Windows has SMB enabled, since any of the consumer branded versions have it disabled; apparently its a business and enterprise only feature now.
If I recall correctly, the word on the street was that Microsoft "intentionally" broke SMB in W7, both for security and lack of interoperability. Don't quote me here; but W7 can use SMB both via the NetBIOS interface and a regular interface-- two different ports (actually 3), one with the NetBIOS carrier crap, one without. I've yet to try it, but there's also word that W7 kills SMB to anything pre-vista.
Of course that's all assuming your copy of Windows has SMB enabled, since any of the consumer branded versions have it disabled; apparently its a business and enterprise only feature now.
That "word" is simply wrong - I have cross-mounts (both directions) with Win7, XP and Server2003 *all* the time.
The major difference with Vista/Win7 vis-à-vis CIFS is better security (like blocking the default administrative shares like \\computername\C$). You might have to make minor changes to security settings, but "kills SMB" is just wrong.
Link please? Are you confusing "file sharing" with "domain membership"?
Good to hear
. As I said, it was hearsay on my part; I know it at least works with Server since that's where my directory is hosted.As I said, don't quote me
In reality though I think it was involving the authentication method; NTLM comes to mind... I forget what OSX requires for its Samba implementation, but the only reason I mentioned it was that I remember reading an obscure article awhile back stating that the "consumer" versions of Win7 didn't allow you to change the authentication method for SMB, thus effectively killing off interoperability-- I'll see if I can find the article? It might be a stretch.EDIT: Alright, so I hope you don't mind, but I didn't bother searching for original article. Instead I found a less than reputable source, the first hit on google here
With that said, it would appear as if what I was referring to was the fact that certain versions of Win7, that is, the cheaper ones, don't come with the "Local Security Policies"? That is, you can't set Network security: LAN Manager authentication level -- Send LM & NTLM responses, and Minimum session security for NTLM SSP Disable Require 128-bit encryption. Apparently without these settings you can't connect to Samba shares, unless they changed it since then. I'm by no means an expert on Win though, so anything's possible.
As mentioned earlier - it sounds like a Samba problem....
Here at MacRumours it's impossible for Microsoft to get any respect. If they don't fix security issues, they are blasted for poor security. If they do fix them, they are blasted because old Samba implementations aren't compatible.
As mentioned earlier - it sounds like a Samba problem....
Here at MacRumours it's impossible for Microsoft to get any respect. If they don't fix security issues, they are blasted for poor security. If they do fix them, they are blasted because old Samba implementations aren't compatible.
I'm by no means against Win, especially W7, but it is kind of crappy that they won't allow certain policy changes on "lesser" versions of the OS-- that holds true for any OS too, not just Windows. Intentionally gimping a feature that's there is rather crappy, especially if it works, and even more-so if it's required to connect to "older" shares (ala Samba implementation).
So yes, it is Samba's fault in essence, since SMB 2.1 introduced new measures in W7 and Samba doesn't have/support them correctly, so the SMB standard doesn't work. That said though, it still sucks that some people can't change it, at least without doing a backdoor.
Simply don't buy the cheaper versions of Windows that don't have the features that you need.
It isn't "crappy", it's a common practice for software features to be tiered into differently priced licenses, based on what you need.
At work I've spent $50K extra to get an activation key to enable certain features of software. I didn't need to download additional software or reinstall anything - I typed the key into the licensing page of the software and the feature was activated.
If you use more features, you shouldn't complain about paying for them. If you don't need them, you should be happy that you don't have to pay for them.
Apple's model is different - since you are only supposed to run Apple software on Apple computers, Apple gets their money from the high margins on Apple computers. They don't do much tiering of software pricing (Apple OSX, Apple OSX Family Pack, Apple OSX Server).
I assume by "only supposed to run Apple software on Apple computers" you are referring primarily to the O.S.?
Mate, the performance issues regarding 10.6.4 have been fixed and a patch issued:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4286
What problems are you experiencing? all very nice to whine but useless if you give no details.
The green Apple has yet to fix this: (right click) Eject "Volume Name" -> Sleep -> Wake -> Power problem issue – ejected drives draw very little power, until you perform a sleep-wake cycle. The drives are still ejected [no auto mount] but 3 drives take like 20 watt extra, just for doing nothing. Not good.
Work around: mount drives after sleep and eject drives again, resulting in 20 watt less power consumption.
p.s. I verified this with a simply wall plug power meter.
Work around: mount drives after sleep and eject drives again, resulting in 20 watt less power consumption.
p.s. I verified this with a simply wall plug power meter.
Hardly fixed, it only fixed the worse but not the big things, like we still have no OpenGl 3.x+ support in worlds "most powerful OS"!!! What does all the OpenCL matter when we don't even have OpenGL 3.x yet and it's out since a while.
Read this: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=10827326#post10827326
That is a feature request not a bug, again, show me a hug you're having problem with the latest update
Which is nothing, what is this supposed to tell me? The fact that you ran an ancient version of OpenGL View and received a crappy result? I get 400fps+ on each of those tests with my 9400M.
Well, I personally think that Jaguar was quite solid. Panther was a real good OS (despite the early bugs) and Tiger's Spotlight still runs circles around you Leos.
Yes, they are great products. Don't have any use for them, but they are good products. Anyhow even if I'd like one, I still couldn't use one. Leopard has been a POS on my Powerbook so I'm back on Tiger. Well, if I had a 10 year old PC I could use it with Win XP but alas Tiger is left in the dust.
I personally started using Android a week ago. Yes, the ride is very bumby and the iOS user experience is better (judging from wife's 3GS). But hey...at least I can do what I want with my phone. Just ignored iPingCrap10 and transfered some lovely songs via Bluetooth to my mobile. And Zedge is a fun product to cut ringtones.
And actually the decision against iOS was more due to two reasons:
a) The phone contracts are awful. I pay 20 bucks less per month with unlimited data on my contract.
b) I personally hate Apple's approach of parenting their users. Yes, it allows for a better experience sometimes - but the whole iPhone thing is full of **** they spoonfeed you like "We cannot allow MMS on the original iPhone due to hardware limitations".
Thanks for acknowledging that. There are several fanbois around here, that are still defending the myth "iTMS is barely breaking even and just a method of selling more devices".
Yes, they are successful. That's why I still buy stock options from them. Apple is a good investment.
But sadly I was badly burned with being an early adopter of Intel iMacs. It's really ironic, that my good old USB iBook still just works, while 3 out of 4 iMacs are dead right now (fried motherboard on one, unusable display due to vertical lines on the other 3 after 2 years of use). I bought one Aluminium iMac 1 year ago and it works fine. But I still want to wait two more years before buying a new Apple computer to see, if the quality has improved.
And honestly I've been wanting to upgrade my computers for years. But Apple and me just got estranged. I still can't decide whether to buy a MacBook Pro or a Sony Vaio Laptop for road use. As I want BluRay on my notebook I think I'll have to go with the Vaio, but I just hesitate to buy a Windows laptop. Oh...those decisions.
I sure hope so and with hope they treat 10.7 like a big deal and do not just tack its announcement in the middle of an iOS update. I know mobile is the focus of the company now but just a little, tiny bit of love for us still on the desktop would be nice. It seems like it has been a while.
I look at it a different way. Many companies nickle and dime you to activate features already in the software you bought. Instead of going the Windows route of multiple versions, you just get the complete OS. No screwing around required.
So much for someone being entitled to their own opinion. Oh wait, this is the Internet I forgot. I prefer the Gmail interface as well.
Other companies put minimal and/or unusual sets of ports on their machines, and "nickel and dime" you with adapters, convertors and dongles to connect as you want.
And, if you'd check, you'd find that Apple does sell multiple versions of Apple OSX.
Other companies put minimal and/or unusual sets of ports on their machines, and "nickel and dime" you with adapters, convertors and dongles to connect as you want.
And, if you'd check, you'd find that Apple does sell multiple versions of Apple OSX.
Oddly enough I did check before hand, but thank you. So I assume you mean the regular Mac OS X and the Mac OS X Server? Which would be very specific separate products? Or the "Family Pack" which is still the same version only with multiple licenses?
Which are 99% identical code, and tiered into different price points to get more money from OSX users who need more features.
How is that different from the various SKUs for Windows? How is adding "Server" to the name of Apple OSX that much different from changing "Home Premium" to "Ultimate" on Windows?
It's really not much different...